How long until there is an Isis attack on the UK?

[atomised]

It's called a WAR. It didn't start yesterday and all of us are on the front lines. Zuck it! I mean FACE IT!

Exactly the point I was making

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Excuse me? Snivelling like a spoilt child? Stiff upper lip? Rally behind our armed forces?

Sorry, I should be rejoicing that our politicians have voted in favour of actions that will no doubt result in thousands of innocent lives lost in Syria, and most likely an attack in the UK as well.

Thousands of lives? There are facts and there are assumptions. Fact: there have been very few civilian casualties as a result of RAF bombing of IS territory so far. Assumption: many innocent people have been lost as a result of the UK's failure to tread on IS more heavily in 2013. An assumption but not an unfounded one.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Exactly the point I was making

That was you who typed that? Sorry, well then thumbs up! But not Pistorius!

 

[Bozza]

Right, so being more fearful of an attack equates to me "wishing for an attack". Some of NSCs finest logic there.

Of course no one would say they were wishing for an attack, but I've read plenty of people seemingly blaming David Cameron et al, in advance, for anything that may now happen. Typically these people seem to be left-leaning and, as such, are not the biggest fans of David Cameron anyway. As such it comes across as wanting something else to hit the current government with.

The way you write on this subject fits that pattern.

 

[pastafarian]

Excuse me? Snivelling like a spoilt child? Stiff upper lip? Rally behind our armed forces?

Sorry, I should be rejoicing that our politicians have voted in favour of actions that will no doubt result in thousands of innocent lives lost in Syria, and most likely an attack in the UK as well.

Why such low opinion of the RAF? Personally I have every confidence in them continuing to do what they have been doing in Iraq.
Is your thousands of deaths estimate by RAF hands an official one?
I read claims this morning the numbers would be millions,however the same Stopthewar fearmonger also claimed we had declared War on Syria and would be indiscriminately bombing the whole country,so clearly a knob

Some people need to step away from the keyboard and calm down.

 

[sir albion]

It's a bit of a breeding ground in this country for extremists and would guess many have returned from Syria and many could easily do something.Life goes on and when it's your time it's your time...Lives will be lost that's for sure and will until this ends in which will be a bloody long time.

 

[m20gull]

Not sure how it makes it much more likely. We are already targeting IS in Iraq as part of a coalition - IS do not recognise the border between Iraq and Syria; now we don't either.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why such low opinion of the RAF? Personally I have every confidence in them continuing to do what they have been doing in Iraq.
Is your thousands of deaths estimate by RAF hands an official one?
I read claims this morning the numbers would be millions,however the same Stopthewar fearmonger also claimed we had declared War on Syria and would be indiscriminately bombing the whole country,so clearly a knob

Some people need to step away from the keyboard and calm down.

As far as I'm aware, the RAF are targeting the IS oilfields to deprive them of the oil and income, rather than towns or cities. This may change at some point, but we are not bombing people, as such.

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/1...dinating-strike-action-what-you-need-to-know/

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

i don't believe we've had an attack from isis or an affiliate, have we?

what's the difference
regards
DR

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Of course no one would say they were wishing for an attack, but I've read plenty of people seemingly blaming David Cameron et al, in advance, for anything that may now happen. Typically these people seem to be left-leaning and, as such, are not the biggest fans of David Cameron anyway. As such it comes across as wanting something else to hit the current government with.

The way you write on this subject fits that pattern.

Don't like Cameron but his presentation yesterday was statesmanlike (but not as good as Hilary Benn's).

That said, his remarks to his own that a vote for 'no' was indicative of terrorist sympathy, was crass beyond belief.

It may surprise you (maybe not - you know me well enough) that I have been considering the value of dropping the big one on them. Given that innocent casualties are inevitable with conventional bombing, and indeed moreso if we go in with ground troops (itself inevitable in my opinion), what's the point of pussyfooting about? I have a feeling that the threat of complete extermination may be the only thing that might focus their minds. Still.... what a horrible prospect. That said, it was the only thing that worked against the Japanese, another bunch who (at the time) glorified in suicide for purposes of war. Before I get flamed, I said 'considering' not advocating.

My feelings about the agreed bombing are that the argument we shouldn't because it makes us a target is evidently false (we already are a target). Yet it won't do any good all the while any of them are left standing. So land war is unavoidable. Doing nothing and letting the 'caliphate' flourish is unacceptable. That's why I have been considering what amounts to genocide. What a nightmare state the world has slipped into

 

[cunning fergus]

Slightly, you might never look for your shoe that gets lost.

Fair point, but then I stepped in dog shit years ago in my adidas Key West and despite robust cleaning I could never get the stink out.

They are just as much a casualty as a shoe lost in the immediacy of being sucked into a steaming pile of hippo turd.

They will equally not grow old as other shoes grow old...............

 

[Bozza]

Don't like Cameron but his presentation yesterday was statesmanlike (but not as good as Hilary Benn's).

That said, his remarks to his own that a vote for 'no' was indicative of terrorist sympathy, was crass beyond belief.

Agree with all of that wholeheartedly.

It may surprise you (maybe not - you know me well enough) that I have been considering the value of dropping the big one on them. Given that innocent casualties are inevitable with conventional bombing, and indeed moreso if we go in with ground troops (itself inevitable in my opinion), what's the point of pussyfooting about? I have a feeling that the threat of complete extermination may be the only thing that might focus their minds. Still.... what a horrible prospect. That said, it was the only thing that worked against the Japanese, another bunch who (at the time) glorified in suicide for purposes of war. Before I get flamed, I said 'considering' not advocating.

My feelings about the agreed bombing are that the argument we shouldn't because it makes us a target is evidently false (we already are a target). Yet it won't do any good all the while any of them are left standing. So land war is unavoidable. Doing nothing and letting the 'caliphate' flourish is unacceptable. That's why I have been considering what amounts to genocide. What a nightmare state the world has slipped into

I don't know if I'm 'for' or 'against'.

For

1. We are already bombing a neighbouring country. Given that starting position, stopping the bombing at the imaginary line that is the border with Syria doesn't make much sense.
2. The threat that IS poses to our way of life is pretty extreme. They operate by completely different rules of engagement to those we are familiar with and can comprehend. Something has to be done, and it's hard to see how diplomacy could work with these particular foes.

Against

1. The risk of loss of innocent life.

I certainly don't believe that this increased military engagement makes us any more likely to be the target of terrorist attacks - that is already highly likely.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Don't like Cameron but his presentation yesterday was statesmanlike (but not as good as Hilary Benn's).

That said, his remarks to his own that a vote for 'no' was indicative of terrorist sympathy, was crass beyond belief.

It may surprise you (maybe not - you know me well enough) that I have been considering the value of dropping the big one on them. Given that innocent casualties are inevitable with conventional bombing, and indeed moreso if we go in with ground troops (itself inevitable in my opinion), what's the point of pussyfooting about? I have a feeling that the threat of complete extermination may be the only thing that might focus their minds. Still.... what a horrible prospect. That said, it was the only thing that worked against the Japanese, another bunch who (at the time) glorified in suicide for purposes of war. Before I get flamed, I said 'considering' not advocating.

My feelings about the agreed bombing are that the argument we shouldn't because it makes us a target is evidently false (we already are a target). Yet it won't do any good all the while any of them are left standing. So land war is unavoidable. Doing nothing and letting the 'caliphate' flourish is unacceptable. That's why I have been considering what amounts to genocide. What a nightmare state the world has slipped into

Fair points, but to your credit you have at least thought not only about the emotive issues, but also about the facts, wish all of the anti-do-anything crowd could do the same.

 

[spring hall convert]

What a sad little loser you are. A democratic vote was undertaken by HM Government and HM Opposition parties and a decision was reached It is now time to rally behind our armed forces and wish them, and others, as speedy a conclusion to this conflict as is possible.

Instead you ask people to best guess when the first casualties will happen within the UK! What next, raffle tickets to decide which county gets it first? Start offering odds on the numbers involved. Grow up FFS, learn what a stiff upper lip is and stop snivelling like a spoilt child.

Totally uncalled for. And before you start having a go at me check post #3.

What are you really so angry about? It can't be a bloke on an internet forum, surely?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Perhaps we should have a poll on this

 

[looney]

Totally uncalled for. And before you start having a go at me check post #3.

What are you really so angry about? It can't be a bloke on an internet forum, surely?

What is he angry about? I thought he was on the money and the same could be asked of the OP.

Its also possible to open a thread titled "Which one of your relatives do you think will die first?"but you would have to ask why would you want to ask that sort of question? Nothing good will come from this sort of naval gazing which is also defeatist and masochistic.

 

[Buzzer]

What a thoroughly stupid and cowardly thread.

You may agree or not that bombing ISIS is a good idea but to base that decision on whether there will be reprisals is a decision made without any moral backbone. It's just an acknowledgement that we are too fearful to deal with this enemy. That's no basis for a foreign policy. Anyhow, by most accounts the British authorities have foiled dozens of attacks already and we are already under grave threat.

We weren't at war when those British holidaymakers in Tunisia got murdered. A British man and more than a few Chileans, Portugese and Spaniards were murdered in Paris. What are we, the Chileans et al supposed to do there to stop being murdered? Explain to the terrorists that as our country hadn't voted to bomb Syria would they be so kind as to go and shoot a few Frenchies and leave us alone?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

we've just been lucky in that they have been foiled..

Lucky. Plus an awful lot of hard work by our Intelligence services.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

...

I certainly don't believe that this increased military engagement makes us any more likely to be the target of terrorist attacks - that is already highly likely.

It would seem likely that 'home grown' jihadi's might have more of a push and therefore more likely to commit a terrorist attack here. Maybe not a considerable amount, but perhaps the final straw.
Daesh's PR machine will use this decision against us.

 

[wellquickwoody]

What are you really so angry about? It can't be a bloke on an internet forum, surely?

Correct.

I am getting rather miffed at the inability of the real left wing types to accept democracy. On the Beeb tonight a young 'militant' complained about Labour MPs joining the lobby for bombing alongside the Tories, exclaiming 'where is the democratic choice in that?'. Labour MP for Hove, Peter Kyle, has had photos of dead babies pushed through his door in advance of last night's Parliamentary vote as he was known to be supportive of action in Syria. I am far from a Labour supporter but Mr Kyle is an excellent ambassador for Labour and is a potential party leader in my view. Then there is the 'outing' of Labour MPs who supported the government last night on a list of those who should be deselected according to the idiots who purport to be real Labour.

So you are right, a bloke on an internet forum is not the cause of my anger, he is the vent for it. Hard life huh?